Sljuka: Constitutional Court decision does not fully resolve the situation, new blockade possible after 30 days

Aleksandar Sljuka, associate of the NGO “New Social Initiative,” pointed out that the new Constitutional Court decision on the constitution of the Kosovo Assembly does not resolve the situation, because the ruling does not mention what will happen if the parliament is not formed within 30 days.

The Constitutional Court decided that the constitution of the Kosovo Assembly must proceed through public voting and that MPs have a 30-day deadline to form the parliament. Also, according to the ruling, the representative of the largest parliamentary group has the right to propose a candidate for the Speaker of Parliament, who can be voted on publicly up to three times.

According to Sljuka, what the Constitutional Court did not specify is what happens after the 30-day period if the parliament still has not been formed.

“What the court didn’t say is what happens after 30 days. Opinions on this matter are divided, some believe the court should act in this way, to help alleviate the institutional crisis, but not to completely resolve it or to offer an exit strategy, or to amend the Constitution and Kosovo’s legal system so that such crises cannot recur in the future. Some have argued that it would be wrong for the Constitutional Court to send Kosovo to new elections. I partly agree with all of that, but I believe this decision does not fully resolve the situation,” Sljuka told Kosovo Online.

He interprets the Constitutional Court’s decision as only one possible avenue to resolve the blockade in constituting the parliament.

“The Constitutional Court did offer a new perspective on the situation and a certain way this could be resolved, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the situation will be resolved completely. We could again face failed votes, then the Self-Determination Movement proposing another candidate, followed by another failed vote... If after a month we still don’t have a parliamentary speaker, we don’t know what will happen, because the court has again left this within limits. It didn’t say, for example, that after a month new elections would automatically be called or anything similar. In that sense, the situation hasn’t been resolved once and for all. The court merely offered one possible way to move forward and potentially exit the crisis,” Sljuka added.

He also stressed the importance of the Constitutional Court declaring all sessions in which a vote was requested for the Committee on Secret Voting to be invalid. He reiterated that Kosovo could find itself blocked again after 30 days if the opposition does not support any Self-Determination candidate for parliamentary speaker.

“In its first ruling, the court said the constitution of the parliament must proceed with public voting, and now it has essentially stated that the proposal to form a Committee on Secret Voting is out of procedure and that all such sessions are invalid. That is significant. I expect the process to continue in the coming period, and that we’ll see Item 3 on the agenda, but we could still face a blockade if, after a month, we have new Self-Determination Movement candidates who the opposition refuses to support, we’ll still be stuck in the same place,” Sljuka emphasized.

According to him, the solution would be to transfer the right to nominate a candidate to another party after a certain period.

“What could be done is that if we have a situation where the Self-Determination Movement fails to secure a majority for several candidates, that right should be transferred to the opposition. The Constitutional Court should say what the exit strategy is, the endgame of this whole crisis, which would probably mean going to elections,” Sljuka said.

He noted that the court has not changed the ruling party’s right to nominate a candidate for parliamentary speaker.

“As far as nominating candidates is concerned, as far as I understand the decision, that still belongs to the Self-Determination Movement. The Constitutional Court did not interpret the Constitution differently in this regard, because we know the Constitution states that the party that won the most votes in the elections should propose the candidate. The court said that if there are three failed votes, the Self-Determination Movement can propose a new candidate, and that this right does not pass to the opposition,” Sljuka concluded.